Like other universities in the CU system, other
universities in Colorado, and universities across the country, UCCS depends
heavily on non-tenure-track faculty.

According to statistics reported in a June 2005 story in
the Denver Post (compiled by NCES and IPEDS in 2001), at the time, UCCS
had the lowest percentage of NTTF compared to TT faculty: 51 percent tenured
compared to 49 percent NTTF (more recent statistics indicate the percentages as
48 percent tenured and 52 percent non-tenure track).At UCD, the numbers in 2001
were 56 percent tenured 44 percent NTTF, at Boulder, a surprisingly low 29
percent tenured faculty to 71 percent NTTF, and at the Health Sciences Center,
11 percent tenured to 89 percent NTTF.

Reasons for the increased reliance on NTTF at UCCS match
reasons at other institutions: financial constraints faced by universities the
latter half of the 1080s and early 1990s, and the need to reduce costs at
institutions (Jay Chronister in “Marginal or Mainstream”).

Problems caused by increased use of NTTF:

Absence of clear-cut and systematic policies that “regulate
appointments, support performance, and minimize harmful status differences” (Jay
Chronister) among faculty in different categories is the primary problem.

Solutions in general terms:

Universities have an ethical responsibility to address
needs of all faculty, including the increasing numbers of NTTF. Quality of
education and retention of students depends on well being of faculty members on
and off the tenure track.

NTTF must be integrated fully into the academic community,
which should appreciate that NTTF members are talented and dedicated teachers
who bring special skills and experience to students. And NTTF positions must be
fully professional to support the responsibilities they shoulder at the
university.

Solutions for UCCS:

At UCCS, we have hade an NTTF representative on Faculty
Assembly since 1998. In the six years since then, progress for NTTF has been
steady but slow. A paradigm shift is needed to conceptualize NTTF as a
legitimate part of the faculty. Typically, faculty Assembly and administrators
think of the faculty as those on the tenure track and NTTF as a separate
category, not fully “faculty.”

What NTTF request:

The number on concern of NTTF is to have their positions
professional. Specific concerns raised by NTTF are these:

Policies governing NTTF are far from systematic.

·Job definitions are inconsistent

a.Expectations regarding service vary widely

b.Even terminology for lecturers is inconsistent across programs and
disciplines

·Benefits for half-time instructors are offered inconsistently

·Lecturer positions should be collapsed into instructorships

·NTTF are fired without adequate knowledge of or opportunity to
correct problems

·Inconsistent evaluation processes

·Inconsistent promotion processes to senior instructor status

·Policies and expectations are not communicated to NTTF

·Instructors don’t receive contracts regularly-they’re often
unclear about their status

Lack of accountability toward NTTF comes form lack of
policies and failure to hold departments, programs, and colleges to core
university expectations